This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells. Molecular Biology: MCB This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Most of the body's platelets are generated in the LUNGS! http://www.sci-news.com/biology/lungs-blood-production-04734.html. Somebody please clean up my blurb in the history section. I know I did it badly. 152.132.1.16 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the anonymous user rewriting a lot of this article. It looks like good stuff, but can you let me know your sources? Zeimusu 13:48, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Most of this is stuff found in any medical textbook. I don't think there is an immediate need for resources on the material added. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that.Zeimusu

Whats a platelet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by De Mattia (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. A platelet is a very, very small plate, typically 4-7mm in diameter, usually with a distinctive rim called a thrombrim. It was a popular member of household table china collections in the period of 1736-1742, when a particular style of dessert-dining was in vogue, called "peu gormand." Peu gormand were small desserts, typically a sweet dough that was soaked in rum and doused with syrup. Peu gormand parties were popular all over Europe, but were particularly popular in Strassbourg and neighbouring regions during this time, and, along with copious quantities of red wine, party-goers would consume as many as 150-400 peu gormand in one sitting! At one time, the peu gormand craze was so prevalent that it was estimated that 1X10¹¹ platelets were being produced in Europe in one single day!

Many potters began to solely produce only platelets in response to the great demand, and were called Marrowers, after a fashionable London socialite named Emily Marrow, who, while very tipsy at a dinner party, untied her bodice, threw it upon the table, decried her host's platelets as being substandard, and declared that she would only buy her platelets from potters who made nothing else! What wonderful drama!

Marrowers were able to profit greatly, and because so many platelets were required for a single household, it became fashionable to produce themed sets of platelets. Popular themes were farmyard montages, political caricatures, and - although only available through the table china blackmarket - young lasses in various states of undress.

Of course, such bulging aneurysms of fashion are prone to haemorrhage suddenly and violently, and as tastes in dinner-parties changed, platelets dwindled to a passing memory. These days, what few platelets that remain are well-sequestered in the collections of a few ceramic-aficionados, and a full set of platelets is worth a pretty penny at reputable antique dealers.

Hope that answered your question! Electrosaurus (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the symptoms of having a high platelet count over 1 million? Mdougherty79@msn.com

Thrombosis, paradoxical bleeding, erythromyalgia. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a useful historical resource about the discovery of platelets and their function here. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only found one source that links Prof Richard Hill Norris to the function of platelets. In contrast, Prof Douglas Brewer (himself a Birmingham emeritus) attributes the findings to Bizzozero, as I have now indicated in the article.

I have emailed Prof Brewer to see whether he knows more about R.H. Norris. For the moment, I think it is safer to attribute the discovery to Schultze and Bizzozero as per Brewer's historical article. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think that uneed less big words and make it simple

Prof Brewer kindly replied to my email. Firstly, there was no University of Birmingham yet in 1878. Secondly, while Norris published on haematomorphology he did not primarily discover platelet function. I regard the matter as settled. JFW | T@lk 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do platelets in nonmammalian vertebrates have a nucleus? It would be nice if this were clarified in the article. --Aranae 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that the page has a picture of platelets on a blood film, perhaps a EM of a platelet as well, perhaps an image of a megakaryocyte at well. This is to replace the picture of the bag of plateletes, which is also on the platelet transfusion page. Snowman 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/histmed/PDFS/Publications/Witness/wit23.pdf - recent history of platelets in thrombosis and other disorders. Enormous document (>200 pages) on the history of platelets. Have no time to read it yet. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 13896038 - the effects of ADP on platelets have been known since 1961! JFW | T@lk 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any information on where or how platelets are produced and introduced to the blood stream, or any methods one can take to increase or decrease the count naturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.139.92 (talk • contribs)

It says quite clearly that platelets are made in the bone marrow. There are no specific "natural" (what do you mean?) methods of manipulating the platelet count. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on volume reduction of platelets for pediatric use. Garffreak (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see all sorts of information, but one surprising omission -- what size are these things? Paul Koning (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Platelets, or thrombocytes, are small, irregularly shaped anuclear cells" "Like red blood cells, platelets have no nucleus." looks like someone added the second one in separately, but do both statements really need to be there? Joel.labes (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been taught the upper limit of normal for platelet count is 400 x 10⁹ / L not 450 x 10⁹ / L, indeed by Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (cheese & onion) and Clinical Medicine by Kumar & Clark back this up. However Lab Tests Online claims it to be 450[1]. Anyway, this has been changed to 400 with Kumar & Clark as the more reliable reference. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:54, 26 March 2009 (GMT)

I'm a chronic ITP patient who has engaged in extensive research on thrombocytopenia and the treatments available.  I am currently enrolled in the Amgen NEXUS program and am receiving Nplate (to which I'm responding, BTW).  Both my hematologist and Amgen personnel with whom I've been in contact state that the "normal" range for most healthy adults is 150x10⁹–450x10⁹.  I had mentioned the Kumar & Clark data to the hematologist (who is also an assistant professor of medicine at a well known U.S. university) and he said the 400x10⁹ number is now considered too low, at least in the USA.  I don't know if the criteria are different in the UK. |→ Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting to hear, as I've said I still am taught 400 but I will ask a haematologist here about it when I come across one. I have looked for recent papers on this but was unable to find anything definitive, I think I will leave it with the Kumar & Clark figure until I find something more recent and reliable. Do change it if you have a better reference, I imagine you know significantly more than me on the matter. Interesting to read about romiplostim, I'd not heard about that before, hope it continues to work! |→ Spaully^₪† 11:40, 4 April 2009 (GMT)

I forgot to mention that, as an Nplate (romiplostim) patient, I am required to undergo a weekly CBC. The printed report from the lab states that the normal range for platelets is 150,000-450,000. If I had a way to do it, I'd put up a scan of the report for your reference. Maybe American blood is thinner than British blood—or is it the other way around? <Grin>

BTW, romiplostim is fresh off the block. The FDA approved it in August for limited field use—I am one of the first chronic ITP patients to get it following the FDA approval. There are still a number of unknowns with the drug, one being what the long-term effects of continued usage will be. Bone marrow fibrosis is a potential problem, as is hepatotoxicity (the latter definitely a problem with eltrombopag, an oral analog to romiplostim). The fibrosis issue could be deadly, as it may cause extremely severe anemia. For me, at least, the potential risks are secondary to the problem of a platelet count crash and a major bleeding event. I hate it when blood starts leaking out of everywhere. It makes me look like a worn-out automatic transmission. |→ Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my bio book explicitly states that platelets are not cells (Biology/Biología, by Solomon, Berg and Martin), but part of cells, from megakaryocytes. It goes on saying that blood is composed of plasma, which contains proteins and else (nutrients and else, you get it), along with "cells and platelets", clearly making a distinction between the too. I know platelets not being cells is debatable, so, what is the consensus? 205.211.221.52 (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition of a cell - if you take the dictionary definition of "The smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semipermeable cell membrane." - then platelets are clearly not cells, because for one, they are anuclear. Kavanagh21 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03586.x - what platelets do when they're not participating in haemostasis. JFW | T@lk 10:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main image in the header of the article shows two platelets in a smear of blood cells. These cells are referred to in the image information as Giant Platelets (they are pretty big for 'normal' platelets). Would it be better to get an image of regular platelets under high mag.? If so, I will take some and post them up. Kavanagh21 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original File:Giant platelets.JPG file, I don't believe magnification is 40X. Maybe the objective is 40X? Ward20 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new section, near the top, could explain their structure - eg no nucleus, what type of surrounding membrane, what surface receptors, what internal structures ? do they contain DNA and ribosomes ? Rod57 (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the article: "Low platelet counts are, in general, not corrected by transfusion unless the patient is bleeding or the count has fallen below 5 x 109/L."

I just had transfusion when my count was 32. The platelet level rose to 157. I wasn't bleeding. If the count is not corrected, in general, by transfusion, my doctor wouldn't have done it. Myez (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1111/jth.12045 reviews the possibility that there might be multiple populations of platelets with different cell surface receptors engaging in fibrin stabilisation and clot retraction respectively. JFW | T@lk 17:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1111/bjh.12764 JFW | T@lk 20:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entire issue with reviews about platelets: doi:10.1111/bjh.2014.165.issue-2. Great for this article or indeed any related article. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture showing the internal structure of the platelet is in no way related to the subject matter it is next to - and is EXCELLENT. I would like to see it at the top.

On the other hand, the current picture at the top - the normal blood smear - only has ONE platelet on it, with no arrow pointing it out: useless. Needs replacing.

Also, the pictures of the bag of clumped platelets and bag of platelet concentrate, and the smear of clumped platelets, serve no purpose, in my view. Recommend delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC) IiKkEe (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the top picture with one of mine that shows the typical appearance of platelets in a stained blood film (smear). I agree that the unit of platelet concentrate serves little purpose (it looks the same as a unit of fresh frozen plasma). I would keep the picture of the stained film of clumped platelets; hematologists have to know what these look like as automated full blood count instruments can give falsely low platelet counts when clumps are present in the blood sample. The test tube of aggregated platelets serves little purpose. With regard to moving my diagram of the structure of a platelet see WP:BOLD. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reference for the word megakaryocyte in the first paragraph, but I don't know how import a reference. Anyone care to help? It's Blood Cells 1989; 15(1): 23-47 Stenberg PE, Levin J: Mechanisms of platelet production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Paste this in the article (from the edit screen):.^[1] Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 1327 page 2013 Third edition of Michelson's "Platelets" has a good chunk of each chapter available free online, called a preview; full access to table of contents and all 40,000 references at sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780

IiKkEe (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the first sentence of the aggregation section is Yip et al "Primary platelet adhesion receptors". IUBMB life, 2005 - Wiley Online Library.

(I am still trying to learn how to import citations.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is the PubMed id number from here [2], which you just add to the template like this:.^[1] And please remember to sign you posts. Graham Colm (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are fast.

Citation 9 is for the first sentence, not the entire section.

The citation for the last sentence in the aggregation section is an online article in Circulation 1999, pages e1 - e11 by Gawaz et al. Online ISSN 1524-4529.

Thank you.

IiKkEe (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

....and the title of the article is? Graham Colm (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I thought the ISSN number would take you to everything.

Turned out for the best: I've got a better reference. The previous one was a review article: the one below is the original.

I'm one step smarter regarding citation importing: I discovered it's the PMID number that gives all that's needed if it's googled. I tried it on the number below and it worked.

PMID 1702031 is the reference: By Philips in Cell.

New reference for a sentence in that section; I marked it (ref): PMID 1702031. By Coller in Blood.

I'll keep working on learning how to use the PMID to get the reference to Wikipedia in the right format.

Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you above that all you need is the PMID number :-) but you are not using the simple template that will complete the reference for you it is <ref>((cite pmid|add number here))</ref> Graham Colm (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: that's what I need to know.

IiKkEe (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two references added to the "Discovery and naming" section are: 1) Wright JH. The origin and nature of blood plates. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 1906;154:643-645 and 2)Wright JH. The histogenesis of blood platelets. J Morphology 1910;21:263-278. No PMID number: it's going to take me awhile to figure out how to cite these.

IiKkEe (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((cite doi)) should help:

Wright, J. H. (1906). "The Origin and Nature of the Blood Plates". The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. 154 (23): 643. doi:10.1056/NEJM190606071542301.

Thanks for all the edits you've made to this page recently! SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is where I type to reply to you, or how you know I've typed a reply for you to read. I'll try it and see what happens.

I appreciate your thanks.

I pasted what you wrote into the article after the sentence to be cited, and no red flags were raised, but I don't know how it gets converted to a number and shifted to the end of the article: is that automatic?

I also don't know what you did to turn the doi format on the first line to the format with the number in it the second line. I'll keep working on it.

Also, how did know that my comment was even there for you to respond to?

IiKkEe (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Osler in Discovery section: Osler, W (1886a) Cartwright Lectures. On certain problems in the physiology of the blood corpuscles. Medical News, April 3, 10,17.

IiKkEe (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 16 and 17 are the same reference for different parts of the page, but they came out looking different

IiKkEe (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 27 and 28 are identical and are related to a topic beyond the scope of this page (platelet response to liver disease). Also we have 4 references to one sentence: overkill. Unless there is an objection I will delete these.

I have a Reading and a Link to the same book. If it is necessary to choose between the two, the link is preferred: it is free, and provides a portal to the book: two for the price of one.

Are there any prohibitions to using an online non-peer reviewed site as a reference? The site is managed by ten hematologists and is highly reliable.

I am still looking for help with getting above non-PMID references into the page.

IiKkEe (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE contains everything you could need to know about referencing, but I'll try to help with your specific problems. First of all, anything inside the reference tags (i.e. <ref> </ref>) is listed where the ((reflist)) is placed at the bottom of the article. However you reference a source, it needs to be inside reference tags to be formatted correctly. To use ((cite doi)) you need to find the digital object identifier of the source, which I normally do by googling the title of the paper - sometimes you need to visit a few pages to find it, and adding "doi" to your search query can speed this up. For example, I found the Osler paper here and in small font there is a link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.1322.807. If you copy the bit after '.org/' into ((cite doi)) you'll be able to reference the work and not have to bother writing all the details of the paper yourself, as a computer will access a database and create the reference for you. If you want to reference the same paper twice, you can change the first <ref> to something like <ref name=author1900> and then when you next want to reference the work, just add <ref name=author1900/> (note the additional /). I made a series of edits to the article where I made some changes which I hope will make sense now that I've explained it more thoroughly. You could try to turn the Wright reference into a ((cite doi)) and add the Osler one properly.

Regarding which sources to use... that's more complicated! Ideally we should use secondary academic sources so review papers and books rather than primary research papers. With non-peer reviewed sites, they can be reliable, but it depends what they are being cited for and whether the information is only published there - if you can find it in a book or paper, that would be better. If there are too many references don't be afraid to remove them.

As to how I noticed you - the article has been on my watchlist for years and so I spot any changes made to it and this talk page. It hasn't been worked on properly in many years, so I'm glad you're doing so. One comment I have from a brief skim of the article though, is that the article doesn't explain how megakaryocytes produce them - do you have any good references for that?

Please let me know if you have any other questions. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE: Thanks so much for the detailed reply. I still can't get my head around how the system knows that the talk page has a new edit and notifies you: I'll just have to accept it! Regarding Megakaryocytes: I have intentionally mentioned megakaryocytes only minimally on the premise that that should be addressed at the Megakaryocyte page. I linked to it with great reluctance because it is just awful!(my opinion) For example, the very subject you inquired about is covered there in the section "Platelet Release". I would call it Platelet Production - release has to do with platelets leaving the marrow. The entire process is described as "The cell ceases its growth ...and begins to produce platelets" with a reference to a hematology textbook chapter. It then states there are "two proposed mechanisms for platelet release" - the "explosive mechanism" is referenced with a 1995 paper from Blood - which is OK but has nothing new been determined in 19 years? The second theory the cell "may form platelet ribbons" No reference. And that "each of these ...processes can give rise to 2000-5000 new platelets upon breakup" No reference, and no mention of platelet output per megakaryocyte It then went on to discuss thrombopoietin. "it is essential for the formation of an adequate quantity of platelets" That's it. This site has a link to Essential Thrombocythaemia which states "The pathologic basis for this disease is unknown"! I left a message on the Talk page with a list of 12 inadequacies od the site and recommended it be shut down until the 12 issues I brought up were addressed. I was overruled. I also went to the link Thrombopoeitin, found an identical situation, left a note on the Talk page there with 4 criticisms, recommended it be shut down until issues addressed, and was overruled, stating the site was "not so bad".

So back to the main point: I think it is important to stay on track and just talk about platelets, not the important ancillary subjects - that should be done on those pages.

Regarding references: I'm surprised you prefer texts and review articles to original research: I prefer just the opposite. Are we talking about Wikipedia policy, or personal preference? An example is the newest section I expanded on "Discovery, early observations, and naming" I got all the references for that section from one review article, but what I said about those references was completely different from what the review article said. Did the same thing with a NEJM article on platelets and thrombi, took some of the references, not the narrative. The problems with review articles and books are not everything in them is referenced, some is author opinion; and when they are cited there is no way of knowing which specific sentence is being referenced: just a page, chapter, or article. And who on Wikipedia verifies the citations are relevant or accurate? At least the title to a paper can be viewed to see if the subject matches the sentence. There was one sentence on the Platelets page when I arrived that had 5 references for that one sentence. Basically it was a bibliography for the subject of the sentence, not supporting evidence for a specific fact.

When I came upon the Platelets page two weeks ago, the three things I thought I could improve were 1) section titles and organization 2) rewording sentences for clarity and accuracy , and 3) deleting inaccuracies and the unneeded. If you are ever so inclined, go to the history section on the page, and compare the page before me (3-16-14) to the current page, side by side to best see what I have done. I never intended to add new material, but as you know, I have begun to dabble in that. It is an enormous undertaking for me at least, especially the citing, but now that the page is basically all me organizationally, I can't stop. The two things I would like to do next are to do some "link image without displaying". I read how to do it on a Wikipedia instruction page. As I understand it, this is a way around the copyright problem: just place a link to the online copyrighted image or video you want the reader to look at, in the body of the text where it's needed, the reader clicks and looks, then closes and moves on. No importing, no copyright violation, total access. Do I have that right? The second thing is to open an "Ultrastructure and function" section. There is a tremendous amount known in that area and none of it was addressed before me. I'll have to learn it before I can write it. And it needs illustrations

So I will take you up on your offer to contact you for specific questions as they come up. Thanks for your interest - any feedback on any of the above would be welcomed. I don't feel so alone any more.

IiKkEe (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I learned the "link image without displaying" feature is a copyright violation, so I'll scrap that idea.

IiKkEe (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE: I added a reference to Wound repair from a book which I don't know how to format. Could you help? Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Editing Wikipedia takes a lot of learning unfortunately! I hardly know anything about platelets but how they are formed seems to me to be an vitally important part any encyclopedic article to discuss, even if there is a separate page for megakaryocytes. I agree that the content there is not well-sourced but I tend to think that something is better than nothing. As you've noticed there are many problems with content here that may not be accurate or is poorly sourced and it takes a great deal of work to try and find sources for content that's already here. We still have a lot of work to do! Don't be afraid to be bold and rewrite or remove content if it is rubbish - people will undo your changes if they disagree with your edits and then you can discuss the controversial parts. I saw your edits to essential thrombocythaemia and thrombopoietin but deleting the articles entirely is too severe and instead you should add something like ((disputed)) ((refimprove)) to the top of the article adding a box to alert readers that the content may not be accurate. If the pathologic basis for ET is known then you should definitely correct it and add a citation even if it a very brief explanation. I expect that nobody watching those pages is suitably qualified to tell whether you are correct which is probably why your comments have gone unanswered. The Medicine Wikiproject has many active editors who might be able to help you, but most of the time, if you want to improve content you have to do it yourself (as you have been).

As I alluded to before, the issue of which sources to use is a complex one to which there is no simple answer. In general we prefer secondary sources such as reviews because as a tertiary source we should only include well-established information and reviews are generally the best way for editors without any prior knowledge of a subject to decide it. You're correct that the reviews can contain opinion, but that's the point - an expert has written it and Wikipedia aims to reflect that. For anything medicine related, the 'rules' are stricter than normal, with all content requiring secondary sources. That will apply to some parts of this article. Obviously if you have knowledge of a subject the situation is slightly different as you will know which primary research papers are significant and so you may choose to cite those. If I cite a review, I will often include references to the primary papers as well since this is something that I as a reader find useful. As editors we have to trust that our sources are reliable unless they are contradictory and common sense prevails.

You've already made comprehensive changes to the article and you're brave to have started! I've certainly never written on such a broad subject here and I appreciate how difficult it is to make progress. I definitely think that a section on ultrastructure and function would help. If you still struggle with the references, don't worry - if you just put the title of a paper inside reference tags (<ref></ref>) someone else can fix the rest for you. As for illustrations, again, most of them we have to make ourself, unless you can find something in PLOS as they're also open source. I'm afraid that I'm not much help but User:Kelvinsong makes amazing biological illustrations and might be able to assist if you explain what is required.

As you've found editing is quite addictive and sucks you in! Learning more about what you write about is part of the fun.

This looks to be a very good review to include in this article covering some of the content we've discussed (thanks to User:Jfdwolff for posting it at Talk:Megakaryocyte) :

• Machlus, K. R.; Thon, J. N.; Italiano, J. E. (2014). "Interpreting the developmental dance of the megakaryocyte: A review of the cellular and molecular processes mediating platelet formation". British Journal of Haematology. 165 (2): 227–36. doi:10.1111/bjh.12758. PMID 24499183.

I assume you can access the full version?

Happy editing! SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE - wow, the Megakaryocyte review article looks terrific - no access to full article but I read the abstract.

I'm getting better at citing: I imported a book reference; and learned how to import an illustration, though I didn't do it: someone helping me learn this at the Wiki helpchat said the article would be too cluttered with any more illustrations.

IiKkEe (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this link not work for you? It comes up as being free for me. If it doesn't, I can send you a copy via dropbox. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take 10 days to respond: just saw this by accident after leaving latest entry here. Yes that link works for me! How much stuff in the way of full length articles can a person get for free via that link? I keep running into blocks that require $20 to get through at PubMed.

Is WP set up to notify me when there is a new entry here? Do I have to do something to make that happen?

I don't know if you have been following my activity here: I've added lots of new stuff with references. Today I spent the day reorganizing the Disorders of platelets section: lots of changes. Imported an image "all by myself" on the Ghrelin page, and set up some EL's. Looks like tomorrow is for more references for the lead, and start in on megakaryocytes,

IiKkEe (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I link to your username you will get a notification: IiKkEe. For seeing most changes though you should add pages to a watchlist - see this page for how to add and remove pages. Once you've added pages you can view all the changes made to them at Special:Watchlist which you'll find linked to in the top right hand corner of the screen. If you watch an article then you automatically watch the talk page as well.

Some papers are open access but many aren't... sometimes you can find copies on other sites by googling the title of the paper. If that doesn't work, then list them here and the chances are I can send you a copy easily. There is also WP:REX for anything more obscure.

I haven't had the time to look closely at your edits yet but will try and do so. SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the tips!

IiKkEe (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider Platelet transfusions having its own page, and this page should have just a 3 sentence summary of the principles. I have not written or proofed this section, and I'm not qualified to monitor it.

There are seven references for this section: all current, that's good - but 27 unreferenced sentences that need to be verified and cited if necessary. Any thoughts about who could review and monitor this section? (I have reorganized the heading and added subsections.)

IiKkEe (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on plateletpheresis but for some reason it's not linked from here. I agree that the current section here is too long and detailed and is also poorly sourced for medical content as some completely lacks citations and other parts are sourced to primary research e.g. this. It should be mentioned here, with a link pointing readers to the main article. SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed 540 edits since Apr 11, and marked 508 of them as minor, out of ignorance as to the difference between a minor and major edit. In fact, probably 90% of these edits were not minor, but major. I have been told it is not possible to go back and correct this; and that the purpose of this label is so minor edits can be deleted from any count or audit. My edits will be properly labeled in the future, and I welcome an audit of any and all of my edits for appropriateness.

IiKkEe (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For any looking for information on how I am using the term platelet and thrombocyte on this page, and which is found in which animals, here is a quote from Levin, page 3, Chapter 1 "The Evolution of Mammalian Platelets" in Platelets. 3d edition 2013, By Michelson: "Polyploid megakaryocytes and their progeny, nonnucleated platelets, are found only in mammals. In all other animal species, cells involved in hemostasis and blood coagulation are nucleated. The nucleated cells primarily involved in nonmammalian, vertebrate hemostasis are designated thrombocytes to distinguish them from nonnucleated platelets. The presence of nonnucleated platelets and their polyploid megakaryocyte progenitors only in the bone marrow and/or spleen of mammals suggests that some important feature of mammalian physiology benefits from this unique mechanism for the production of anucleate cells from the cytoplasm of a larger cell, for the apparently major purpose of supporting hemostasis...

IiKkEe (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. If I understand you correctly, "thrombocytes" are commonly found in vertebrates, but non-nucleated thrombocytes, or "platelets" are unique to mammals. This is an interesting point which deserves clarification. Note however, that "thrombocyte" redirects to this page, and the article does not yet make any distinction between the terms thrombocyte and platelet. The textbook you cite makes an appropriate distinction between the two, but in everyday parlance, I'm not sure biologists stick this with convention. For example, a search of PubMed turns up a number of developmental biology articles which refer to platelets in Xenopus laevis (lab frogs). They probably should refer to thrombocytes. To further confuse matters, frogs have PDGF (platelet derived growth factor) in their serum.

Perhaps the following intro would provide better clarity to these points: Thrombocytes are cellular elements, found in the blood of vertebrates, that are important for the initiation of blood clotting.[1] In mammals, thrombocytes consist of blood platelets, which are 2-3 µm cytoplasmic fragments of bone marrow megakaryocytes which bud off into the circulation.[2] In non-mammalilan vertebrates, thrombocytes circulate in the blood as nucleated cells, and are a similar size to erythrocytes.

I must confess, I also do not understand the description of platelets as a "biconvex disc". This seems like a term invented to contrast them from the better known "biconcave disc" shape of erythrocytes. There are plenty of photographs of platelets, either Wright Giemsa stained, or electron micrographs, on the web and in histology atlases. I've never seen anything that resemble a biconvex lens of eyeglasses. In reality they are sort of irregular spheroids with lots of finger like projections. mattelfesso (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the points and observations made by Mattelfesso. The alternative lead sentence offered is an improvement on the current version and the description of platelets as a "biconvex disc" is new to me and not true. Graham Colm (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mfero - first, thanks for calling my commentary insightful. Second, thanks for being willing to discuss first, rather than editing first. The WP "BRD" guideline for discussing differences would in my view be better served by a "DP-DO-AA" guideline: Discuss privately [on the home page of the first author (in this case, that's me)]; then the first two (that's us) discuss publicly (on the talk page here) any unresolved issues for the public to weigh in on; then if the two initial discussants still cannot agree, have an Administrator arbitrate. While all this is going on, no editing or reverting on the site. Since that is exactly the way we started, I'm hoping we can continue with that approach.

I'd like to discuss "biconvex discs" first and "platelets vs thrombocytes" later. First: have you read my "Morphology change" subsection under "Platelet dynamics"? If not, I hope you will, and let me know if there's anything there that you disagree with: it's all related to this discussion. Second, do you have access to Michelson's book, Platelets? That will let me know whether to refer to it by page, or paste quotes from it here as needed.

I'll start with a link, not to try to prove a point, just to see where we can find a point of agreement. This is a scanning electron micrograph of the structure of the the platelet in various stages of activation. What is your impression of the morphology of the unactivated platelet depicted on the left? It looks a bit like a breakfast sausage or a pancake to me! [[3]]

OK - your question has already caused me to decide to change my wording: several authors describing platelets say "discoid" not disc, so I'm changing that right now.

Another photograph of a discoid biconcave platelet showing the thin edges and "fat" center is on p 118 of Michelson - sorry no way to transmit it to you, and it's not online. Spending $205 or going to a medical library would be your only way to access it.

I'll stop here and wait for your response.

Regards -

IiKkEe (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments everyone. A couple of questions were raised, so I'll try to give a bit more input.

• Thanks IiKkEe, for the Talk guidelines. I appreciate reminders, since I inevitably get lost trying to find the style guidelines. On another technical note, I notice that there are a large number of edits over a short time period (more than 80 edits from 5/11/2014-5/13/2014). I'm wondering if its better for editors to try to batch changes (perhaps by section) rather than parse out each smaller change? The reason I ask this, is that this makes it a lot harder to compare to my (or other peoples) prior edits.
• Regarding platelet shape. I'm fine with the term "discoid". The link by IiKkEe to the JBC cover photo is helpful. (Too bad its copyrighted.) I think the key word here is "inactivated" platelets, since there is a radical morphology change upon activation (not to mention clumping). If I were to use a food analogy (which I don't recommend) I would probably call it a "bun".  :) My main concern about Introductory paragraphs, in general, is that they are clear and to the point. While a mention of the size and shape may be fine, it should not detract from the general message about what a platelet is, and what it does. So its better to say a platelet has a discoid shape, rather than it is a disc (adjective vs. noun). I note also that the historical information, later in the article, the histologists sort of varied on what to call them, (spherules, discs, plates, platelets). Not knowing what they did, I imagine they focussed on their appearance and shape. Is it worth mentioning that the term "platelet" was originally coined in reference to their discoid shape?
• One could argue for a couple of different approaches to the question of distinguishing "thrombocytes" from "platelets". I'm hesitant to focus too much on semantics, except when it improves the clarity of the article. From a biological perspective, my inclination is to speak in general terms (all vertebrates), and then become more specific (mammals/humans). I realize though that most readers will be primarily interested in human platelets, and then, secondarily, on how this contrast this on how it is in other animals. This is also how things were worked out historically by scientists. Still an understanding of the developmental relationship of thrombocytes to erythrocytes (having a common cellular progenitor) and the evolutionary relationship of megakaryocytes/platelets to nucleated thrombocytes of vertebrates provides some clarity in an otherwise bewildering array of cell types and terminologies.

mattelfesso (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this section pending its completion and will "park" it here.

• Mitochondria
• Surface glycoproteins
• Dense tubular system
• Microtubular system
• Open canalicular system
• Plasma membrane
• Cytoskeleton
• Alpha granules
• Dense granules
• Glycogen granules

IiKkEe (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed:

Uremia, a consequence of renal failure, leads to platelet dysfunction that may be ameliorated by the administration of desmopressin.

This was out of place in the section about drugs causing platelet dysfunction. I couldn't readily find another section on diseases that affect platelet function, but this is great source: Hedges SJ, Dehoney SB, Hooper JS, Amanzadeh J, Busti AJ (2007). "Evidence-based treatment recommendations for uremic bleeding". Nat Clin Pract Nephrol. 3 (3): 138–53. doi:10.1038/ncpneph0421. PMID 17322926. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (remove the Medscape URL if copying this to the main article). JFW | T@lk 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review in JTH: doi:10.1111/jth.12730 (platelets in infection and inflammation). JFW | T@lk 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inherited platelet function defects are rare, but this ISTH guideline discusses how they should be assessed doi:10.1111/jth.12792 JFW | T@lk 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not defined or mentioned in article. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a word that means "platelet". Lboukoko (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Platelet/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If platelets goes down it causes bleeding in human body. It can be decrease due to typhoid ( entric fever) or water and food. Sometimes down platelets is not harmful but you should take treatment when platelets goes down Rajababumy (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned as a reference for the claim "2–3 µm in greatest diameter" does not mention a diameter explicitly (or I was not able to find it). It states that the mean platelet volume is 6.6 fL, which corresponds a diameter of 2.3 \mu m. Therefore I removed the "greatest" in the above claim. Answer if you have an opposite opinion on the matter. Lboukoko (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lboukoko The unactivated platelet is not a sphere, it is a symmetrical biconvex disc; the "diameter", or distance between two comparable opposite points on its surface, is a function of the plane through which it is measured. This is not a precise use of the term diameter, but it is used here informally to get the message across. There is, in fact, a "least diameter" and a "greatest diameter" as well as many measurements between these two extremes. Thus, the statement "2-3 um in greatest diameter" is accurate, although it may not be supported by the cited reference.

Yes, the reference states that the mean platelet volume is 6.6 fL, but that corresponds to a mean diameter of 2.3 um/m, not the one diameter; there is no such thing.

The word "greatest" still appears in the article as it should, not removed as stated above, so this discussion is moot. IiKkEe (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of [[4]Relevance of "automated digital image analysis" mention?], a comment that applies to this article to:

On February 11th, user Johannes A. Schmidt added a mention of an article he seems to be an author of (as well as a freeware), and did a similar modification on the platelet article. The modification is [[5]], and the quoted article is here. I think that the comment is too precise to be relevant for the article, and would require user Johannes A. Schmidt to give more details about the relevance of this comment if he wishes to maintain it. I'll delete it if I get no comment.

Lboukoko (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit of 20:45 31 August 2018, the word "clot" was deleted throughout, leaving many sentences unintelligible, e.g. "contain clotting mediators" becomes "contain ting mediators". I tried to undo the edit, but subsequent edits blocked this. The page needs to be heavily edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamunro (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Tamunro. @Milanroc: These errors were caused by you. Could you please fix them? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"PLT" is not found on this page. A subsection describing the inclusion of platelet count during a blood test would be useful, so that CBC / blood testing pages can link to it from their discussion of PLT levels. Darkskysunflowers (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the measurement section was poor, so I have changed it and added better references. Feel free to add/edit. I am not sure where/whether "PLT" fits within this, but there is now a reference to FBC/CBC now. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  09:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your added references! I've moved some things around and might stomp around with some major edits. I would love to condense the header, and I've already tried to remove some of the verbosity from Platelet#Hemostasis. This article strikes me as information-full but lay-reader-opaque. I'd like to preserve the relevant info while removing the dictional fluff. Feel free please to revert any of my edits if they are inappropriate. Best ~ Darkskysunflowers (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]